Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral depth by explaining how support/resistance are computed ('clustered swing highs/lows with touch counts') and what the output includes ('nearest levels above and below with distance %'). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's analytical behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and information-dense. Every phrase adds value: it lists the types of levels, explains the touch count concept, mentions the output format (nearest levels with distance %), and gives a usage recommendation. There is no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It specifies all key outputs, the input, and the intended use. An output schema exists, but the description already conveys the return substance. No important gaps are apparent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has only one parameter 'ticker' with a clear description ('Ticker symbol, e.g. 'SPY''), and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional semantics about the parameter, but the schema already handles it. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compute key price levels for a ticker' and enumerates specific outputs (support/resistance zones, round numbers, moving averages, 52-week high/low). This distinguishes it from sibling market context tools by focusing on concrete price levels for trade planning.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use these for concrete trigger/target/invalidation levels.' This implies when to apply the tool (for trade execution planning) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools. Since siblings are present, more explicit exclusion would be ideal, but the context is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.